Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The fallacy behind that is that it assumes that making a movie in NJ is equivalent to making a movie in NC. NJ is a very high tax state.
But there never seems to be an answer to this question. If you believe in incentives, how much of your salary are you willing to devote to permanent incentives?
It's a simple question, but not one that anyone wanting to hand tax money is willing to answer.
Do you support the GOP's plans to cut the corporate tax rate? Doesn't that serve the same purpose?
Your argument is simplistic in my opinion. You clearly don't understand film & tv as businesses.
Maybe you can understand this. After Rocky was made several films were written to be set in Philly. The city didn't know to play ball with them & the movies were filmed elsewhere.
Movies & tv shows bring tourists, both foreign & domestic. The productions bring money to hotel restaurants catering businesses etc., besides hiring locals as extras & paying to shoot on private or public property
Last edited by southbound_295; 06-16-2014 at 12:29 PM..
If you are willing to pay taxes for the film industry/incentives. I will ask you again. How much of your salary are you willing to devote to a permanent incentives tax? If incentives are to be permanent, then there should be a permanent tax for it.
OK, nowhere in the universe, at least my universe, does one get the choice of saying "uh, I will pay 7.50 for schools and $9.00 for streets, $3.26 for the poor. Taxes don't work that way.
In other words, your question is absurd.
Yes, I am willing for some of my taxes to go to film incentives. In fact, given what a lot of tax money pays for currently, it is probably way up there in priorities.
Here is my personal experience, it is all I have. Dispute or ridicule all you want, I don't care, but it a true tale of the economic impact of a film.
Early 1990s, I was looking at a house in Southport. $135,000. The perfect house. Then The BIRDS movie came to Southport, and since the house was empty, it was in the film. We went back next summer, house still on the market, but they wanted and they eventually got $180,000. But not from me.
That is real world of what film can do. And that bump of $45,000 into someone's pocket, would never have been recorded by whomever.
Clearly you have an agenda that logic, ROI, or common sense cannot satisfy. I am sorry.
Your argument is simplistic in my opinion. You clearly don't understand film & tv as businesses.
....
Yet you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer two very simple questions. How much of your salary are you willing to devote to a dedicated incentives tax? Do you support cuts in the corporate tax rate?
As taxpayers, no more understanding is needed beyond that. They are the ones asking for the money. It's their job to convince the taxpayer's representatives it is worthwhile. So far I've seen no argument that justifies it.
OK, nowhere in the universe, at least my universe, does one get the choice of saying "uh, I will pay 7.50 for schools and $9.00 for streets, $3.26 for the poor. Taxes don't work that way.
....
Except this isn't what I asked you. I asked how much of your salary would you be willing to devote to a dedicated incentives tax? Clearly you can let your representative know how you feel by telling them this. The question isn't absurd, but clearly you will not answer it. It speaks volumes about the dubious claims being made as to their benefit.
Clearly not an absurd question. Do you support the GOP's plans to cut corporate taxes? If you are unwilling to answer that one, then sir, it's not me who has an agenda.
(Though I've been very clear about my agenda. I don't support permanent taxpayer incentives to private industry.)
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Yet you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer two very simple questions. How much of your salary are you willing to devote to a dedicated incentives tax? Do you support cuts in the corporate tax rate?
As taxpayers, no more understanding is needed beyond that. They are the ones asking for the money. It's their job to convince the taxpayer's representatives it is worthwhile. So far I've seen no argument that justifies it.
No one gets to designate where their taxes go. In my opinion your question is nonsense.
Again. . .I think that you clearly don't understand it. I worked in tv for 20 years & tried to explain it to you.
Those of us who feel that killing the incentives is shortsighted are allowed our opinions as much as you are allowed yours. Attacking our views & asking questions that are posed as a form of aggression doesn't make you right.
I have no problem with some of my tax dollars going to incentive the film industry. It's a clean business that uses existing infrastructure...and most importantly, brings in "outside" dollars while adding value to NC's existing resources. I have no numbers to throw out there, but I know this generally to be true.
Economic Development is a BIG issue...and Eastern NC RARELY see's incentives provided from Raleigh (which seem to mainly go to companies wanting to locate in either Raleigh and Charlotte regions). Expansion of the film industry affects Eastern NC in a very positive way, taking advantage of its natural resources. I think that part of the debate has been lost to some degree.
I would support giving out less incentive money elsewhere in the state for roads and infrastructure expansions and more for the expansion of the film industry. Much of that infrastructure money is going to build vacant shell buildings and building roads to nowhere that possibly will help big corporations. The new economy is about entrepreneurship and being creative....this is where the jobs are being created. I'd like the State of NC to get on board with helping small businesses, entrepreneurship and other clean industry like the film business.
No one gets to designate where their taxes go. In my opinion your question is nonsense.
Again. . .I think that you clearly don't understand it. I worked in tv for 20 years & tried to explain it to you.
Those of us who feel that killing the incentives is shortsighted are allowed our opinions as much as you are allowed yours. Attacking our views & asking questions that are posed as a form of aggression doesn't make you right.
I have not attacked your views. In fact, I never responded to your opinion if you gave it. All of your posts to me have been to argue that my opinion is wrong. Please check back to this thread if you feel otherwise. However once you decide to tell me that I'm simplistic, and that I don't understand, then expect that will will seek to clarify and defend what I've said.
Your personal history isn't an argument. A successful point is one that is based on the evidence and logic. There has been no proof provided these tax incentives provide any kind of net gain to NC considering the opportunity cost.
No matter. The incentives are going away. I support it.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
I have not attacked your views. In fact, I never responded to your opinion if you gave it. All of your posts to me have been to argue that my opinion is wrong. Please check back to this thread if you feel otherwise. However once you decide to tell me that I'm simplistic, and that I don't understand, then expect that will will seek to clarify and defend what I've said.
Your personal history isn't an argument. A successful point is one that is based on the evidence and logic. There has been no proof provided these tax incentives provide any kind of net gain to NC considering the opportunity cost.
No matter. The incentives are going away. I support it.
I said that I thought that your argument is simplistic. If you can't tell that that's different from calling you simplistic, I can't help you. If you refuse to understand that the people getting jobs because the state gives an incentive & are paying taxes that fill the hole left by the incentive, I can't help you understand that.
The questions that you are demanding answers to come off, to me, as passive-aggressive.
They are not 'killing the incentives'. The law has a sunset provision.
Thanks Carlos, I'm a lot smarter for reading your post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
